Scalia

The Sheriff of my County makes more than that and will be able to retire at age 50 with a 150k /year pension +medical and cost of living+ can double dip and work for someone else. I wonder what a Supreme makes when you add the retirement, medical, driver, car and other perks?
 
would you feel safe if police officers were paid minimum wage?
how about fire fighters?
school teachers?
public defendants?
district attorneys?

so why is it OK to underpay supreme court justices?
lets see if we give 9 people an extra million a year thats
9,000,000/300,000,000= $0.03
wow i thought i was just giving my two cents worth but I guess I gave three.
 
you folks keep talking about when a supreme court judge retires...

as far as I know they very seldom do...they either die in office or retire a few months before they do. Keep in mind this is a job for life.... it's easier to get a president dismissed than a supreme court justice. One of the few things I remember from early government classes in highschool. don't strive to be president... go for the gold, the supreme court.
 
would you feel safe if police officers were paid minimum wage?
how about fire fighters?
school teachers?
Click to expand...

around here they really aren't doing that much better than minimum wage....
 
by Antipitas:
So what some of you are saying is that we simply aren't paying these elected (or appointed) critters enough? That if we payed more, we would get a higher caliber of legislator or judge? Really?
Click to expand...

This is a tough question because you mixed elected and appointed critters. With respect to the appointed critters, there are essentially three options for attracting national-caliber people to public service:
  • Pay them little or nothing and you will only attract the independently wealthy or those who will seek a second income (corruption historically being a favorite alternative in government);
  • Pay them well below what they are worth in the marketplace and you will get a small number motivated largely by altruism or vanity, or:
  • Pay them what they are worth and you will have a much larger pool to select from.
Pick the approach you think works best.
 
Scalia acknowledged Wednesday that it's not always simple to divine original intent, but he said any other theory leaves judges unleashed to interpret the Constitution however they see fit.
Click to expand...

You mean, just like that POS political whore Judge Antonin Scalia did in Raich vs. US, in finding that the clause "regulate commerce among the several states" extends to apply to medicinal herbs grown in California, and consumed in California, never leaving the state?
 
It's not Scalia vs. pothead. It's Scalia vs. the plain words of the constitution as written by the Founding Fathers - those idgets like Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, and Franklin. Sounds like you're the one that's likely smokin now that we have that cleared up, doesn't it? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top